JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

The present criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking issuance of appropriate writ or order directing the respondent police authorities to find out/trace out the father of the petitioner, namely, Suraj Prasad Singh, who is missing since 19.03.2013.

2. The factual background of the present writ petition is that on 19.03.2013, the wife of the Petitioner filed a missing report to the officer incharge, Beur police station, Patna, stating that her father-in-law, Shri. Suraj Prasad Singh has gone missing and she has suspicion that Prabha Singh, Kiran Kumari and Vibha Sinha have abducted him with intent to get registration of sale deed in regard to the house of her father-in-law, Suraj Prasad Singh, who is 85 years old. The persons against whom the Petitioner has doubt for abduction are his sisters, who have eagle eye on the property of his father as per allegation made by the petitioner.

3. It is further alleged in the petition that the three sisters, who are Respondent nos.8, 9 and 10 herein, have given false affidavit in the registration office at Purnia that the Petitioner has died on 12.04.2010. This false affidavit has been given by Respondent no.8, 9 and 10 while some property of the Petitioner at Purnia were being alienated. It is further stated in the petition that despite several requests to the officer-in-charge of Beur police station and higher police officers, neither father of the Petitioner was recovered nor any FIR has been lodged. It is also stated that no police official of the Beur Police station has ever visited Gowhati to find out or trace his father-in-law as is evident from the information received under the R.T.I.

4. The matter is still at the stage of admission.

5. I heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of failure of the police to trace out his father till date and failure of the police to lodge FIR, the Petitioner has been constrained to move this Court for want of any efficacious alternative remedy.

7. However, learned counsel for the State vehemently submits that the the petition is not maintainable, in view of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy to the Petitioner. As per allegation it is a case of missing, though the Petitioner has suspicion that his father has been abducted by his sisters with intent to grab his property. But there is no clear case established as per the averment made in the missing report or in the writ petition that the father of the Petitioner is in illegal confinement by any state authority or individual. At most, it is a case for lodging of FIR and conducting proper investigation by the police. But for this, the Petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy by way of application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC/175(3) B.N.S.S. read with Section 97 Cr.PC/Section 100 B.N.S.S.

8 I considered the submission advanced by both the parties and perused the material on record.

9. As per the record, the father of the petitioner has been missing and the Petitioner has suspicion that his sisters have abducted his father with intent to grab his property. But there is no clear case of illegal confinement of his father either by any state authority or individual. The grievance of the Petitioner is on account of failure of the police to lodge FIR and recover the victim/father of the Petitioner.

10. Here I find that efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of moving appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. Section 156(3) Cr.PC/ 175(3) B.N.S.S. read with Section 97 Cr.PC/Section 100 B.N.S.S. are wide enough covering the power of the Jurisdictional Magistrate to direct the Officer-in- charge of concerned police station to take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring proper investigation including monitoring the same. Section 156(3) Cr.PC [equivalent to Section 175(3) B.N.S